ALEC, The NRA and “Stand Your Ground Laws”

Yesterday, February 26, 2013 marked the first anniversary of the shooting death of unarmed 17 year old Trayvon Martin on the way from the store to his father, Tracy Martin’s home in a gated community in Stanford, Florida. This anniversary is a good time to review the status of the Florida “stand your ground” law first passed using an ALEC [American Legislative Exchange Council] legislative template in 2005.

Because of this law that allows a person to shoot another person in “self-defense” without having to retreat from the situation anywhere inside the home or outside in the community the Sanford police initially refused to arrest 28 year old George Zimmerman – a self-appointed neighborhood watch volunteer.

He was eventually charged with second degree murder after a national wave of protests and the opening of a Department of Justice investigation. Zimmerman’s trial will take place in June of 2013 unless he is able to use one of the provisions of this law [also sometimes called the "license to kill law"] to have the charges dismissed during a “pre-trial immunity hearing” that is also part of this law. At this hearing [scheduled for April 22nd] if he can convince the judge that he acted in self defense then he will be given immunity and never have to face a jury. That self-defense ruling will also prevent Trayvon Martin’s family from ever bringing a civil suit.

Why am I writing about the stand your ground law during this national time of consideration of legislation to decrease and prevent gun violence? Well, first there is the tragedy that was taken to the nation as more than just 1 of the 30 gun deaths that take place every day in the US, by Trayvon’s very brave and determined parents, Sybrina Fulton and, Tracy Martin, with the support of many civil rights groups, and family and community members.

Then there is the fact that with the boiler plate law introduced by ALEC in State legislatures and the push by the NRA to pass “stand your ground” laws in all 50 states there were variations of such laws in 25 other states by the time Trayvon was shot and killed. After the killing the attempts by the NRA to pass such laws in Minnesota and Alaska failed. Unfortunately, the other laws all remain on the books although they vary in some ways.

Within an excellent article that details the history and variety of self defense laws and which states have them, here’s what PR Watch had to say about the problem with such laws which are also nicknamed the “shoot first” and “make my day”laws:

Florida’s 2005 Stand Your Ground law changed criminal justice and civil law codes by giving legal immunity to a person who, according to the statute, uses “deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm.” It goes beyond the common law notion of self defense by establishing a presumption in a shooter’s favor. This means prosecutors must disprove a killer’s assertion that they felt threatened, as opposed to the shooter having to establish they acted reasonably and in self defense. It also bars the deceased’s family from bringing a civil suit.

Stand your ground cartoon by Adam Zyglis, The Buffalo News

Two positive things have come out of this otherwise senseless tragedy. The first is the suggestion that an amendment is needed to such laws that were originally meant to protect victims of domestic violence within their own homes where they couldn’t retreat and be safe. The change that Trayvon Martin’s parents are suggesting is called “The Trayvon Martin Amendment” It would add this clarifying provision for states that already have NRA/ALEC Stand Your Ground laws:

” A person who starts a fight cannot then claim self-defense under the law.”

A second very important positive development in the year since the killing was the exposure of the undemocratic process that ALEC was using to flood state legislatures with right wing laws that were written in consultation with corporations who financed ALEC and lawmakers who wanted to pass such laws. These laws were then pushed through state legislatures without the participation or input of the people of the states. By looking at how that process created a law that the gun manufacturers wanted a spotlight was shone on other laws such as anti-union laws, and school voucher laws, deregulation of economic and environmental laws, voter ID laws, and others for which large corporations paid and ALEC wrote the “model” laws.

Since the undue and undemocratic influence of large corporations through ALEC was revealed — over 40 of the more responsible corporations, foundations and, non-profits have divested their funding from ALEC over the past year, along with the departure of 55 state legislators. Some of those who have left include General Motors, General Electric, Amazon.com, McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, Hewlett-Packard, John Deere, Pepsi-Cola, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Taco Bell and other Yum! franchises, Kraft Foods. The Gates Foundation has also left ALEC along with 3 other foundations.

In many ways the “stand your ground” laws illuminate some of the issues that also make up the conversation about what keeps us safe, what threatens our democracy through the injection of corporate interests and corporate lobbying and what rights do we have to maintain the safety and security of each and every person in our society.

How does Stand Your Ground interact with the conversation about gun violence?

21 Responses

ALEC was created by the Koch brothers. The Koch brothers are therefore directly responsible for all the deaths caused by their efforts to build up a well armed base of ignorant doctrinally compliant idiots, they hold in reserve against the day their efforts to squelch minority (soon to be majority) votes fails, and they need to accomplish politics ‘by other means’. They mean to win, no matter the cost, no matter that it will mean the end of representative democracy, with more unfortunate Trayvon Martin events, and worse.

IKTIM, I don’t think that the Koch brothers (as wealthy, powerful, greedy and manipulative as they are) can be held solely responsible for the harm that “stand your ground” and other anti labor, anti union, anti immigrant and pro privatization laws have done.

I do agree that they have provided a lot of the funding for ALEC but there are other corporate sponsors as well. For instance Wal-Mart, the NRA, many of the large Pharma companies, the big tobacco companies, the American Bail Coalition, which hopes to privatize the bail bonds process in every state in the country.

And as Lisa Graves [executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy who formerly served as deputy assistant attorney general at the Justice Department], describes it: “corporations[who want to] basically slash taxes and get set-asides for themselves and stop the ability of the EPA to regulate poisons that poison our air and water…”

But we agree that ALEC, and the legislators who have been given “scholarships” and flown to these meetings where the laws are created, have caused a lot of pain and suffering.
The most outrageous part of this situation is that as of their last meeting in July of 2012 ALEC has still refused to call for the repeal of ALEC-approved laws, like “Stand Your Ground.”

ALEC was their creation, their idea, and it was their funding that got it off the ground. Without the Koch brothers, there would not be an ALEC in its present form, or as large and powerful as it has become in the effort of the very wealthy to dominate all aspects of our society. Every major national Republican figure has had to participate in the Koch brothers’, figurative and actual, ring kissing ceremony, including their supposed pragmatic great white (and wide) hope, NJ governor Chris Christi. Cancer grows from the very first wayward cell, and this cancer, this pox on our country, came right out of Koch brothers’ whoring after power, and their need to feed their greed.

To return to the topic of the “stand your ground laws” and how they favor the shooters rather than the victims in most murder cases here’s a good and very detailed analysis from the Tampa Bay Times published in June of 2012.

It points out how vague the law is — and how the results are very different depending on who is interpreting the law, where you live, your race, who your victim is, your lawyer. The study of 700 cases demonstrates how it often ends up preventing charges against premeditated murder and criminal shooters.

Florida ‘stand your ground’ law yields some shocking outcomes depending on how law is applied

Florida’s “stand your ground” law has allowed drug dealers to avoid murder charges and gang members to walk free. It has stymied prosecutors and confused judges. • It has also served its intended purpose, exonerating dozens of people who were deemed to be legitimately acting in self-defense. Among them: a woman who was choked and beaten by an irate tenant and a man who was threatened in his driveway by a felon.

Seven years since it was passed, Florida’s “stand your ground” law is being invoked with unexpected frequency, in ways no one imagined, to free killers and violent attackers whose self-defense claims seem questionable at best.

Cases with similar facts show surprising — sometimes shocking — differences in outcomes. If you claim “stand your ground” as the reason you shot someone, what happens to you can depend less on the merits of the case than on who you are, whom you kill and where your case is decided. […]

Its a good law and I wish NY had it. Maybe by you bringing attention to it we can get something like this passed in NY. You shouldn’t have to worry about prosectution if you shoot someone who is bashing your head into a sidewalk.

Randy, please read the article from the Tampa Bay Times And then tell me that you still think that the “Stand Your Ground Law” would be good for NY State or any other state. It gives people license to commit gun crimes and then try to hide behind a claim of self defense to avoid trial and punishment. As it is now written it has prevented trials of criminals, romantic rivals, and those who shot unarmed people in cold blood.

And here are some more reasons why it’s a terrible law when we already have pleas of “justifiable homicide” on the books that can be used in a trial by a jury of one’s peers.

…A new study by economists at Texas A&M University, available through the National Bureau of Economic Research (2012), uses police data and concludes that Stand Your Ground laws are associated with a significant increase in homicides and that these homicides are classified as murders.

Using public health data, economists at Georgia State University also recently (2012) found that passage of a Stand Your Ground law is associated with a significant increase in homicides, and particularly homicides of white males. They conclude that “these findings raise serious doubts against the argument that Stand Your Ground laws make public safer.”

Researchers also find striking racial disparities in how Stand Your Ground laws play out once a defendant claims self-defense. John Roman and Mitch Downey of the Urban Institute find that in states with Stand Your Ground laws, twice as many homicides are deemed justified as in non-Stand Your Ground states. In the Stand Your Ground states, when white shooters kill black victims, 34 percent of the resulting homicides are deemed justifiable, while only 3 percent of deaths are ruled justifiable when the shooter is black and the victim is white. […]

Yea, in NY if my home were invaded by someone intent on robbing or doing harm to myself/family, I am required to flee; leaving them to rob my house, vandalize… whatever. The only way I can use force is to be cornered with no escape or said person commences harming my loved ones. It does not matter if the criminal is carrying a gun (most likely illegally obtained) either. If I defend, then I am looking at felony assault or manslaughter charges and a lawsuit from the attacker.

NY Laws on such matters are tilted entirely in favor of criminal who wish to do harm to myself, loved ones or take/destroy those things I have.

Goober, We already have a form of the Castle Doctrine law on the books in NY State. So why do we need a law that justifies gun violence outside the home — and in fact anywhere at all?

You are not required to flee but have many other self-defense options already:New York Penal – Article 35 – § 35.20 Justification; Use of Physical Force in Defense of Premises and in Defense of a Person in the Course of Burglary

I wouldn’t want to question the integrity of statistics provided by, ” A new study by economists at Texas A&M University, available through the National Bureau of Economic Research”, Mickie Lynn, but is it at all possible that your summation may be somewhat misleading?

When itemizing, “when white shooters kill black victims, 34 percent of the resulting homicides are deemed justifiable, while only 3 percent of deaths are ruled justifiable when the shooter is black and the victim is white”, would you think it relevant to indicate the race of the aggressors, as well as the victims of the aggression, as well as the nature and extent of the aggression applied and what, if any, weapons were being used by the aggressors, to help further clarify conclusions.

As is often the case, incomplete information can be as misleading as inaccurate information.

This is a disingenuous pattern of yours and also a lazy seeming one. [Sunday driver yeah!] You don’t actually read, establish context, respond to the well researched article and the links provided.

All that you do is question a few facts. Something that from long experience with your comments, you also do in lockstep with climate change deniers and with any facts or information that question the status quo even when it does great harm.

Exactly how do you know, with such absolute surity, what I read and don’t read, Mickie Lynn? You might be surprised to learn I read all you want me to read, and simply don’t agree with or accept the presumptions you expect me to believe, from reading that nonsense.

Just how did you get to decide what, “a disingenuous pattern of yours and also a lazy seeming one. [Sunday driver yeah!] You don’t actually read, establish context, respond to the well researched article and the links provided” as opposed to, I actually read every word, in addition to a lot more relevant subject matter, that drove me to a well thought through conclusion, of my own, that the sources you routinely quote rarely, if ever, have much knowledge about what they are lecturing about.

You routinely complain about the length of my responses, yet you want me to address each and every point of yours I consider bubkus, which would add volumes to my responses. Your wouldn’t be trying to obfuscate this discussion by tossing in some nonsense about “climate change” by any chance, would you?

Where have I suggested anything that might be, what you consider, “in lockstep with climate change deniers and with any facts or information that question the status quo even when it does great harm”, or should I just accept your accusation as something other than an effort, albeit inept and unsuccessful, to add fog to what is being discussed, and do my best to ignore your most blatant ill advised assumptions.

“Exactly how do you know, with such absolute surity [surety] , what I read and don’t read, Mickie Lynn?”

I can’t know anything about what you actually read, with absolute surety Albert but I can make informed responses from your words!

As for climate change try re-reading your comments on Maud’s post “Tanks Into Windmills” as well as several years of comments on our blog when the subject has been raised. Remember your words don’t go away just because they are not currently visible. Just as history and the historical record doesn’t disappear.

My position on Global Warming has been rock solid and hasn’t changed, be it accurate or inaccurate. As the saying goes, “when you tell the truth, you don’t need a good memory”. My position is, was and will continue to be:

1. Any and all human polution should be minimized WHEN POSSIBLE, as long as the unknown or unintended consequences of the suggested solution DO NOT exceed the overall damage caused by the pollution.

2. We DO NOT have a firm handle on whether, or not, pollution thusfar caused by man has had a “significant effect” on the climate changes the planet appears to be going through, or if those changes are caused by other factors far beyond man’s influence, or current level of understanding.

3. We DO NOT have a firm handle on whether, or not, any of the more radical proposed solutions regarding significant changes in man’s behavior will have a material effect on the changes the planet is going through. Rather than initiate solutions based on faulty or incomplete assessments that hold the potential of wreaking far mor havoc on mankind, we delay acting until enough knowledge and understanding is within our grasp to fully understand the potential consequences, at which point we can rationally refer to #1 above. [...]

Moderator’s note: several paragraphs attacking me and my style of moderation have been deleted from Albert J.’s original comment rather than deleting the entire comment.

Albert J – Your contention that your, “position on Global Warming has been rock solid and hasn’t changed”, is in fact true. Your position has always been the water muddying position that there is not enough proof to conclude global warming is caused by man, supporting a status quo that favors the continuation of the rampant burning of fossil fuels, so desired by the corporate cabal you serve. The “rock solid” position you profess, however, is not supported by the hot manure pile upon which you have placed it, and into which it is sinking.

Okay “boys.” The last two comments are the end, rather than the beginning of what I sometimes see play out on other blogs as a series of exchanges of insults that just continue to escalate and hijack the discussion of the article. This blog isn’t going to allow such an exchange to mushroom.
Further comments of this sort won’t be published.

To return to the issues and ideas at hand ~~ We can observe that we seem to be discussing two important threats to our country ~~ and in the case of climate change to the entire world and biosphere. Let’s examine Albert’s approach to climate change as outlined in his comment #13 and in previous comments:
Just to take Point #3 Where he says:

… Rather than initiate solutions based on faulty or incomplete assessments that hold the potential of wreaking far mor havoc on mankind, we delay acting until enough knowledge and understanding is within our grasp to fully understand the potential consequences, at which point we can rationally refer to #1 above. [...]

Albert advocated delay to prevent unknown or unintended consequences of the suggested solution that might exceed the overall damage caused by the pollution. What he has left out of this analysis is the horrific changes to our entire planet and to our weather and climate systems that are already occurring and that urgently need to be stopped .

Science tells us that some of those changes are already irreversible because certain physical and chemical tipping points have been passed. The longer that we continue to raise the ambient temperature of the Earth and waters the more severe, long lasting, and unstoppable those changes will be. So no more investigative committees. We need to act now to stop and slow down such changes before it’s too late. As we act we can refine our behavior and goals based on observations of the results, but we need to act if we are to prevent continuing disaster. This is much more than “pollution.”

Now, to return to the “stand your ground” laws which were the original subject of this article. Without modification these laws are actually encouraging gun violence and killing with the promise that the shooter can claim “self defense” and avoid being tried for violence and for excessive use of deadly force. The past 8 years have clearly demonstrated these results in Florida and in a number of other early adopting States.

Knowing this: Why would we continue to pass such laws? In the case of States that already have such laws in place why would we delay in amending them with the provision that ” someone who initiates aggression cannot claim immunity under the stand your ground laws or claim “self defense?” It’s simple! We see the consequences of this very damaging and murderous law and we need to stop it. There’s no reason for delay. No reason for waiting. This also applies to the proliferation of guns and the increase in gun violence all over our country. We know that it’s happening and we need to act now to minimize it and to protect people so that they can live their lives in safety.

Albert J. in reply to your questions in comment #9 about my quotes of a couple of studies I recently found a very good link to another Tampa Bay Times article published in June of 2012 that gives many more examples, graphs, and statistics including an interactive data base about the topic of the results of “Stand Your Ground” laws. Thanks to Sentinel on the Guns blog for supplying the link in a comment on Lawrence White’s latest article.

Insread of trying to discover if there is some racial disparity caused by “Stand your Ground” legislation, it seems a lot more relevant to determine if such legislation is working to protect the interests of those innocent people who are the targets of violent, aggressive attacks.

It seems to some, that placing what might be considered, unreasonable responsibilities on the victims of violent aggressive behavior to avoid escalation is misguided and the responsibility, and whatever consequences are produced by their violent, aggressive behavior, should be borne by the individual who instigates the violent, aggressive behavior.

In the recent, widely publicized example in Georgia, why should a mother, in her own home doing nothing to threaten anyone, be considered responsible for whatever consequences are produced and are the direct result of a stranger deciding, independently, to violate that mother’s most basic instinct and threaten her small children.

Why should it be the responsibility of that mother to decide whether the threat suddenly imposed upon her is of sufficient risk to her children to warrant the use of deadly force, to protect those children, in what would otherwise be expected to be the safety of her home?

The decision to invade that mother’s safety zone was made, unilaterally, by the intruder. The risk and threat to these children was delivered, entirely, by the intruder. Why SHOULD that intruder be granted any presumption of personal safety against, what might be considered excessive force by the mother, who was unexpectedly, and unreasonably, exposed to a level of fear and anxiety by the intruder.

Isn’t the risk, associated with intruding into the home of another as well as any and all potential consequences intruding carries with it that sole and specific responsibility of the individual who separately and deliberately decided to violate that mother’s right to a peaceful existence in her own home?

Does it really matter what the race of the intruder and/or the race of the victim actually are anywhere near as much as determining who was intruder and who was victim, and placing full responsibility for generating the confrontation where it belongs, on the intruder regardless whether he/she is black, white, hispanic or asian.

Albert, I’m not sure just what you’re talking about in your long statement about a mother who was defending her children in Georgia. The article that I recommended was a study of “stand your ground laws” in Florida with extensive information about how they were applied and what the results were. Since you just told a rather incoherent story about what sounds like a home invasion without giving any specific details except the state in which it occurred — Georgia– it’s not possible to tell how relevant to the conversation that vague and undocumented story actually is.

In most states people already have a legal right to self defense if someone tries to invade their home. For instance the Florida study didn’t include such cases unless the “stand your ground” law was actually invoked.“…Home invasion robberies and other cases that clearly would have been self-defense under previous law were not included unless a “stand your ground” immunity motion was filed. If a case occurred on the defendant’s property but outside the home, it was included if the defendant could have retreated inside the home.”

Your comment, in addition to being long, rambling and totally missing the point and content of the Tampa Bay Times study, seems to be a way of changing the subject rather than exploring the real world and complex effects of such a law. It’s also difficult to take it seriously when you spin out such a tale in a way seemingly designed to take up time and space but not contribute any new ideas.

Are you serious Mickie Lynn, a week or two ago there was a national story all over the news about a mother in Georgia, who was home when her home was invaded by up to 3 individuals. She barricaded herself in an attic with her 2 or 3 children and wound up shooting one of the intruders 5 times,before he and his partners elected to leave. The shooting was recorded by a 911 operator who had been notified by the woman’s husband, and who had called by the frantic woman.

Forgive me, but you have to pay attention to what is happening in the world around you sometimes too. This was a major national story, that I presumed you would be familiar with. The point I was, apprently not successful in conveying to you, was citing an example of a simple question related to the concept of “Stand your ground”.

Why is there so much concern about how the victim responds to the aggressor, rather than the threat the aggressor is causing to the victim, which to many is the very crux of the issue. Why is there such a focus on what an unsuspecting, victim should be required to do to avoid an aggressor who is TOTALLY responsible for the confrontation?

Why are you so wrapped up in what the victim is supposed to do regarding interacting with, and responding to, the aggressor?

It is clear from your comments and inferences that you have already made up your mind about the Travon Martin shooting, which may well play out somewhat differently that you have already concluded during the forthcoming trial, which I am interested in seeing played out in court, before forming a conclusion.

The point, I failed to get across to you, is spelled out in the opening sentence in my above response, “Insread of trying to discover if there is some racial disparity caused by “Stand your Ground” legislation, it seems a lot more relevant to determine if such legislation is working to protect the interests of those innocent people who are the targets of violent, aggressive attacks.”

Albert J. First you imply that all national media ran the story that you reference in your emotional comment. Since you didn’t give your own source or even a date, or a town, or a name, it’s impossible to verify that statement. I can only tell you that the story didn’t make it to the media that I read, watch and listen to.

Second, it didn’t have anything to do with the “stand your ground” laws but came under the clear and present danger/self defense laws that already exist and don’t invite aggressive shooting with an invitation to get out of jail free. If you read the studies then you know that sometimes it’s difficult to identify just who is the “victim” when an aggressor shoots first and claims “self defense.”

Finally in answer to your opening and closing statement: [ “...Insread [sic] of trying to discover if there is some racial disparity caused by “Stand your Ground” legislation, it seems a lot more relevant to determine if such legislation is working to protect the interests of those innocent people who are the targets of violent, aggressive attacks.”]

The evidence of the studies [that you refuse to read or respond to] is that such legislation does not work to protect innocent people who are targets of violent aggressive attacks and instead often (all too often) protects the attackers.

Note: The Times Union is not responsible for posts and comments written by non-staff members.